Earlier today, we ran across this article on CNN.com, and our collective response was "Really?" Yes, apparently one of our most trusted news organizations is still trying to wrap its head around the crazy idea that people want to make movies out of comic books. Look, CNN, we know you're trying. We appreciate that. But when you trot out the same stereotypes and patronizing "would you look at that!" attitudes that have been circulating in the media for two or three decades now, we feel like it warrants a response.

That's why ComicsAlliance staffers Laura Hudson, Caleb Goellner and Chris Sims have taken it upon themselves to offer a roundtable rebuttal to the article:

CG: Did they seriously use a "Watchmen" graphic? Did they write this article in the TARDIS?

LH: "THE WATCHMEN."

CS: Oh, like "THE 300" and "THE SIN CITY?"

LH: "THE SPIDERED-MAN."

LH: The fact that this writer's uncool-to-cool spectrum involves comics as a scarlet letter of social ineptitude on one end and Michael Cera as some sort of nouveau James Bond on the other leads me to believe that she has a pretty poor grasp on the concepts of both being cool and comics.

CS: When I think "The Definition of Cool," three names come to mind: Steve McQueen. Burt Reynolds. Michael Cera.

CS: "We did this by putting out a book of straight-up porn starring children's book characters,' Staros added. "Just hot, nasty, all-girl three-ways. It's a slipcased hardcover, though."

CS: Well, except Michael Bay movies. The key to those is explosions. And Uwe Boll movies, where the key is a loophole in the German tax code that appears to have been put there by Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom.

LH: Ah, I never get tired of seeing the vague, anachronistic preconceptions of someone who has never set foot in a comic shop being presented as fact!

CS: Okay, who had "they're just for kids!" in the betting pool? I had "Parents' Basement."

CG: I still read a lot of my comics in my house. Should I be worried? Does CNN have an online poll to tell me what I should think? Maybe a hologram?

LH: Seriously, where are all these comic book reading kids? I bet comic book publishers would love to meet them.

CS: Really? Because those days were going pretty strong about two paragraphs ago.

LH: The days of being embarrassed by the things you enjoy are actually over whenever you develop a sense of self-worth that isn't dependent on the approval of random idiots, but if you've been waiting with bated breath for the affirmation of CNN in order to finally accept yourself, then congratulations: Your day of liberation has come.

CG: Wait... those days are over? You mean I've been hiding my "Atomic Robo" trades behind copies of "Popular Mechanics" for nothing?

CS: Wouldn't it be crazy if there was a comic book movie that made insane amounts of money in 1989, and the news media was still running the same "You can make MOVIES out of these things!" stories twenty years later?

CS: And those sales on "Watchmen" and its associated $100 action figures are going just as strong now that anyone who was interested in it can go see the film by visionary director Zack Snyder, right retailers?

CG: I think the real takeaway message here is that a glowing blue penis doesn't appeal to the all-ages crowd as much as a spindly hero who happens to dress kind of like a luchadore.

CS: If the novel "Push" (by Sapphire) was also a comic book, Hollywood would be going BANANAS right now.

CG: I like soft sells. My soap isn't a skin detergent -- it's a lifestyle, you know? Just like my Malibu comics.

CS: Oh, good. Comics need more creators who don't actually like comics and are just trying to make money by putting out their movie pitches as cheaply as possible. Way to advance the art form, CNN.

LH: If there's any message I'd like to send to people who are unfamiliar with the medium, it's "Comics: They're Basically Glorified Storyboards!"

CG: You know what I like? Those novelty stepping stones shaped like feet or animal paws. CNN should do a story on those!